Impeachment is a constitutional process in which a government official, such as a president, justice, or public officer, is formally charged with wrongdoing. It serves as a mechanism to hold officials accountable for crimes or misconduct committed while in office. It is neither a purely legal nor a totally political process.
It is legal in that it must follow the Constitution and especially due process. Otherwise it is political in that the House of Representatives and the Senate have wide discretion to interpret the relevant constitutional provisions and to perform their roles. Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism designed to address serious violations against the system of government.
It serves as the initial step in a corrective process, potentially leading to the removal from public office and disqualification from holding future positions.
Although "impeachment" is often used to describe the entire process of removing an official from office, it specifically refers to the indictment stage in the House of Representatives, not the trial in the Senate.
Impeachment is initiated in the House of Representatives by the filing and subsequent referral to the Committee on Justice of: (a) a verified complaint for impeachment filed by any Member of the House of Representatives; or (b) a verified complaint by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof; or (c) a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third (1/3) of all Members of the House.
Mode C was used in the impeachment of VP Sara.
If the committee deems the complaint sufficient in form, it will then assess its sufficiency in substance. A complaint meets the substance requirement if it includes a statement of facts that establish the alleged offense and confirm the committee's jurisdiction. If the committee determines that the complaint lacks sufficient substance, it will dismiss the complaint and submit its report.
The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment The senators would serve as jurors in proceedings. Subject to applicable constitutional provisions such as the 2/3 vote required for conviction, the Senate has full powers to decide how to conduct the trial including quantum of proof.
Based on Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution The following officials may be subjected to impeachment: • President of the Philippines • Vice President of the Philippines • Justices of the Supreme Court of the Philippines • Members of the Constitutional Commissions: • Commission on Elections • Civil Service Commission • Commission on Audit • Ombudsman All these officials can be removed only by impeachment, although the Supreme Court removed Chief Justice Sereno by quo warranto, which many believe was a wrong decision.
a. Culpable Violation of the Constitution For impeachment purposes, a "culpable violation of the Constitution" refers to a deliberate and wrongful breach of constitutional provisions. Unintentional violations, good faith errors, or mistakes in interpretation do not constitute impeachable offenses.
b. Treason Under the Revised Penal Code, treason is committed by any Filipino citizen who wages war against the Philippines or aids its enemies, providing them support either within the country or abroad. As a ground for impeachment, treason constitutes a profound betrayal of the nation, rendering an official unfit for public office. Due to its severity, officials charged with treason may face both impeachment proceedings and criminal prosecution. Since impeachment is a political process, establishing treason in this context does not necessitate the same legal standard as a criminal conviction. Nevertheless, it remains a high crime that threatens the state's integrity and warrants removal from office.
c. Bribery Bribery is classified into two types under the Revised Penal Code: Direct bribery occurs when a public official agrees to perform an illegal act related to their official duties in exchange for an offer, promise, or gift. Indirect bribery happens when a public official accepts gifts given due to their position.
d. Graft and Corruption Any violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) is grounds for impeachment. This includes cases where a public official acquires assets or wealth grossly disproportionate to their lawful income.
e. Betrayal of Public Trust This encompasses acts such as abuse of power, gross negligence, favoritism, cronyism, and other misconduct that undermine public confidence in government and bring the office into disrepute. Betrayal of public trust is a broad and flexible ground that can cover a wide range of abuses. It does not require a criminal conviction, making it a political question that Congress decides in impeachment trials. Acts must be serious enough to erode public confidence in governance.
f. Other High Crimes These refer to offenses of such gravity—akin to treason and bribery—that they threaten the government’s stability or proper function.
In Francisco Jr. vs. House of Representatives, the Supreme Court declined to define "other high crimes" or "betrayal of public trust," stating that these are political questions beyond judicial review. However, the Court implicitly left their interpretation to the House of Representatives, which holds the authority to initiate impeachment proceedings. This means that it is up to the House of Representatives (which initiates impeachment cases) and the Senate (which conducts impeachment trials) to determine what qualifies as an impeachable high crime.
The fourth impeachment complaint, filed and endorsed on the same day, presented seven articles of impeachment, accusing VP Sara Duterte of culpable violations of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, and other high crimes, including bribery and conspiracy to commit murder. That being said, she became the second-highest-ranking elected official in the Philippines to be impeached, following former President Joseph Estrada in 2000. Chief Justic Corona was impeached in 2011 and convicted in 2012.
Although the House of Representatives impeached Vice President Sara Duterte before adjourning, the Senate, which oversees the trial, can decide when to conduct the trial. Senate President Francis Escudero confirmed that the Senate would address the impeachment complaint once Congress reconvenes on June 2, 2025. Until then, the process remains on hold. Alternatively the Senate can decide to conduct the trial immediately as impeachment is not a legislative function but a constitutional duty. One can even argue that this is a mandatory duty. This is akin to the constitutional duty of members of both Houses of Congress to convene to canvass and proclaim the winners of the presidential elections as well as to assemble to revoke or extend the declaration of martial law by the President.
Yes, impeachment proceedings can still proceed even if Vice President Sara Duterte resigns from office. Impeachment is a process used to hold high-ranking officials accountable for alleged wrongdoing. If articles of impeachment have already been filed and the process is underway, Congress may decide whether to continue the proceedings. However, if the official resigns before conviction, the process may become moot and academic, meaning there would be no need to remove someone who is no longer in office. But the officer can still be convicted by the impeachment court and a penalty of disqualification to hold public office may still be imposed against the official.
In the case of President Trump in 2021, he was impeached and tried, unfortunately acquitted, after he left office. That said, if there are legal or constitutional violations involved, other legal avenues (such as criminal or administrative cases) may still be pursued after resignation.
Article XI, Section 3, paragraph (5) of the Constitution reads: "No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year." The 1987 Constitution limits the number of impeachment complaints that can be filed against an official to one per year. There has been controversy over what counts as an impeachment complaint. While some argued that for a complaint to count against the limit it must be voted on, and others have proposed other interpretations, the House has decided that any complaint filed fulfills the quota regardless of how well-formed it is or who filed it. Therefore, supporters of a vulnerable official can file a weak, flawed, or unconstitutional complaint, thereby using up the quota and protecting that official from impeachment for that year. There has also been debate about whether a year should be a calendar year, say 2006, or a full 12-month period. An example of how this limit works in practice are the attempts to impeach President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. While the Philippine impeachment procedures parallel the United States' impeachment procedures, the two procedures differ in two significant ways: the percentage needed to impeach and the numerical limit on impeachment procedures.
The primary issue is whether the initiation of impeachment proceedings should be reckoned from the filing of the complaint or from the referral of the complaint to the committee. It is the former.
In sum, VP Sara can be impeached again later in October 2025 one year after the first impeachment complaint was filed.
